Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(COMM) 1015/2024

TATA POWER RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED & ORS. versus ASHOK KUMAR/S & ORS.

Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra with Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Advocates.

Through: Mr. Shivam Takkar, Advocate for Defendant No.6.

Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for Defendant No.10(through VC)

Mr. Aishwarya Dobhal, Advocate for defendant no. 13

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra & Mr. Tribhuvan, Advocates for Defendant Nos.16 & 17

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

30.07.2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Peeyoosh Kalra, C.A. Brijesh, Krisna Gambhir
For the Respondents: Shivam Takkar, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Aishwarya Dobhal, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Tribhuvan

Under Order XIII-A of the CPC, a summary judgment can be granted in commercial suits if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, bypassing the need for oral evidence or full trial to ensure expeditious disposal.

Headnote:The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade competition, subsequently seeking a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court found that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 18 failed to appear or contest the suit, and Defendant No. 18 had slavishly copied the registered trademarks 'TATA' and 'TATA POWER', thereby establishing a clear case of infringement and passing off. The Court framed the issue around whether the defendants had any real prospect of successfully defending the claim under the summary judgment procedure. Relying on the principle that the intent of the Commercial Courts Act is to ensure time-bound disposal and that trial is no longer the default norm when no realistic prospect of defense exists, the Court determined that the averments in the plaint were admitted due to the absence of a written statement. In the overall conspectus and considering the law settled a decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant Nos.1 and 18 in terms of prayer clauses at paragraphs ‘29 (a)’ to ‘(h)’ of the amended plaint dated 03.04.2025.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 30.07.2025

IA No.13640/2025 (Application of the Plaintiffs seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act)

1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. The underlying suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and unfair trade competition.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicants/Plaintiffs state that the main contesting Defendants in the underlying suit are Defendant No.1 (who is John Doe) and Defendant Nos. 18. He states that the said Defendants have not entered appearance till date. He states that even otherwise the said Defendants have no real prospect of defending the claims of the Plaintiffs as mentioned in amended plaint dated 03.04.2025.

3.1. He states that Plaintiffs got to know between June, 2024-March, 2025 that many innocent persons were being duped by the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.18 on the pretext of providing services and/or dealerships of the Plaintiffs.

3.2. He states that vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in I.A. 45021/2024 (filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC), this Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 as well as others from using the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs i.e.,

‘TATA’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘TATA POWER’,

‘ ’, ‘ ’, or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered trademarks. He states that similar directions were passed by this Court vide order 08.04.2025. The relevant part of the orders dated 14.11.2024 and 08.04.2025 reads as under:

Order Dated 14.11.2024:

45. Considering the substantial goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs and the fact that the services offered by them are highly technical and expensive, the misuse of the plaintiffs’ trademarks by the defendant no.1 is deceitful, malafide, and intended to wrongfully and illegally gain monetary sums from the public. The unauthorized use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks, prima facie, amounts to infringement and passing off.

46. On perusal of the material placed on record, a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the plaintiffs. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad interim injunction as prayed for is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

47. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant no.1 (and such other entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to be engaged in infringing or passing off the plaintiffs said trademarks) are restrained from using the plaintiffs’ trademarks TATA,

‘TATA’,

‘TATA POWER’, ‘TATA POWER’, ‘SOLAROOF’ and ‘EZ CHARGE’, or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks.

48. The defendants no.2 to 4, Bharti Airtel Limited, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Vodafone Idea Limited, are directed to temporarily block the mobile numbers +91-8582918388, +91-6284623558, +91-6290642946, +91-7294167526, +91-9088122986, +91-7384958215 and +91-8920950301 and to provide details of owners of the aforementioned mobile numbers.

49. The defendants no. 5 to 13 i.e., the various banks where the defendant no. 1 have bank accounts, are directed to freeze the respective bank account numbers mentioned inparagraph 21 of the application and provide details of the respective account holders and documents thereto including bank statements, identity proofs and registration forms, etc., available with the defendants no. 5 to 13.

50. The defendant no.14/Bank of Baroda, is directed to freeze the bank account associated with the UPI ID: bhoom63536188@barodampay and provide the details of the respective account holder and documents thereto including bank statements, identity proof and reg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document